In discussion section, one of my classmates brought up the question of whether or not participation is even appropriate for any and all organizations. It was a nice reminder of the complexities and intricacies of NGO and aid work in general. We talk about the professionalization of NGO, the so called NGO-speak and we generally speak of it in a pejorative way. However, we shouldn't forget that there is no one unified definition for an NGO and that there is no absolute plan for the structuring of these NGOs. NGOs, are at its core, a fluid and evolving mechanism and the models that we come up to try to describe it will not always perfectly mirror reality.
My point is that the Participatory Approach article by Duraiappah is a very narrow way to view the relationship between service recipients and service providers. In my organization, the Suitcase Clinic, there is a strong emphasis on "caseworking" which we define as having a genuine conversation. It's the key principle that anchors and informs all of our projects and decisions. We create a climate that is conducive to building relationships. Service provision, whatever they may be is a secondary goal. This ideal does not neatly slot into any one category of participation because how do you define and categorize a conversation with its infinite mutability and dependence on context? It shouldn't be because it defies categorization.
My issue then is with the participation model. The term participation itself is embedded with positive connotations. It's appealing. It's inclusive and it's just a very pleasant word so the rationale behind the paper and the argument is that more participation, a specific type of participation as defined by the authors, the more enriching and successful your NGO or project or plan will be. Instead of Manipulating people, you can have Active Participation but it's not always so clear cut as that. Participation in this context doesn't take into account choice. By choosing to receive services or by choosing to come to the Suitcase Clinic, isn't that in essence a choice to participate? When clients come to the Suitcase Clinic and choose to enter a conversation, isn't that also a form of participation? And who's to say that this micro form of participation is less than deciding the infrastructure and budgeting of the Suitcase Clinic.
I agree with your sentiments. We had a similar conversation today in our discussion. While I believe participation is a great goal for NGOs to work towards, it is not always feasible, or even beneficial. For example, health operations that administer certain drugs to people would not be considered participatory. A health research program,conducted by Ted Miguel, discerned that giving deworming pills to children was one of the best ways to increase school attendance (versus giving monetary incentives or textbooks). Though this is not a participatory model, its work established a deworming campaign in Kenya, and later India, that has increased school participation in youth. The result was successful, but it did not come from a participation model. Participation should therefore not be synonymous with success in NGO speak.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I do not believe this article speaks to the issues NGO face around becoming participatory. Often constricted by funding and external donors, NGOs have certain targets that they must meet. When donors wish to see certain indicators improving, or certain ideas implemented, the NGO is restricted in its ability to give autonomy to the people when it does not have full autonomy itself.
Coming back to the original point, participation, as a general term, is weighted and somewhat dangerous. It must be contextualized, and while generally the people themselves should be implementing the programs (as sustainability is often a key goal), immediate needs, using expert knowledge, are also significant.
I have the same issues with the use of the word "participation." Just as there is no one unified definition for an NGO, there is no one perfect definition for participation. Like the NGO you describe, the definition and connotations of participation are fluid and change when applied to different situations. There are so many sides to the relationship between service recipients and providers that the services tend to fall into an overlap between categories, and even then there always exceptions. I agree with you and see the client's decision to communicate with the Suitcase Clinic as participation. The Suitcase Clinic does not seek out the clients. They merely offer the options to talk. By electing to take this opportunity for themselves, are they not actively participating? They seem to be participating themselves in finding a solution by engaging in a conversation where they request information rather than have services recommended to them by people who think they know better.
ReplyDeleteI have the same issues with the use of the word "participation." Just as there is no one unified definition for an NGO, there is no one perfect definition for participation. Like the NGO you describe, the definition and connotations of participation are fluid and change when applied to different situations. There are so many sides to the relationship between service recipients and providers that the services tend to fall into an overlap between categories, and even then there always exceptions. I agree with you and see the client's decision to communicate with the Suitcase Clinic as participation. The Suitcase Clinic does not seek out the clients. They merely offer the options to talk. By electing to take this opportunity for themselves, are they not actively participating? They seem to be participating themselves in finding a solution by engaging in a conversation where they request information rather than have services recommended to them by people who think they know better.
ReplyDeleteI find myself also questioning what constitutes “participation” at Suitcase, especially because the organization is so multifaceted and complex, yet in the end just offering free services to anyone who wants them. Is participation the ability to make self-determined choices, to access all the important information to make informed consent, or to be on an equal playing field with the others in the organization (whether politically, financially, socially, etc)? Maybe I have just read too much Foucault, but I really feel like the conversation we should be having right now is not one of participation, but rather of power and knowledge. Is it a choice when the client engages in conversation with me or is it just that they feel they owe me for the meal they just ate or an expression of gratitude for the moment with a roof to have over their head or a doctor's care for the first time in a decade? Is it a choice when the client doesn’t even understand what I am offering? I wonder what power differential is at play when clients so often seek my advice, when I have basically no professional training in most of what I provide them. I wonder if there is a choice even to be made when our services are the only options they have to get their basic needs met.
ReplyDelete